This is the city: Los Angeles, California. I work here. I'm an ex-mayor. Los Angeles is a magnet for people from all over the world. Some of them run for public office. Inevitably some of them stray from the golden rule and rule for those that have the gold. That's when I go to work. My name is Yorty. I'm a dead pol.

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

[UPDATE FROM ZD: TO SAVE SPACE, INSTEAD OF FULL THREAD, SEE MY COMMENT ON THIS THREAD ABOUT WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE THE NUMBER ONE PROBLEM CONFRONTING THE CITY IN '07(BESIDES CRIME).]

December 26, 2006 for Immediate Release

Proposition R back to court -- hearing date set.

From: David Hernandez SFV Community Advocate--Ted Hayes City of Los Angeles Homeless Advocate.

Los Angeles,

Prop R, the controversial proposition which extended the term limits for Los Angeles City Council members, returns to court for constitutional review.

The Proposition described by some as Ethics Reform written for Lobbyists by Lobbyists will once again undergo judicial scrutiny to determine if the measure presented to the voters violated the California Constitution. The combining of two issues in one measure is prohibited by the State Constitution. Prop R combined the extension of City Council Term limits with Ethics Reform.

The January 25, 2007 hearing will be in Department 85 and will be heard by Judge Dzintra Janavs.

Judge Janavs is no stranger to high profile cases and recently ruled on the constitutionality of AB 1381, the bill which transferred power over LAUSD from the LA School Board to the Mayor of Los Angeles. Judge Janavs ruled AB 1381 did violate the California Constitution.

Judge Janavs has served on the bench for over twenty years. Further information available at www.termedout.com.

8 Comments:

Who cares what the Mayor's speechwriters think. They thought AB 1381 would stand up in court last week. Of course they're gonna say, "Apples and oranges", but I think the Mayor actually hopes Prop. R is overturned, too. Do you think the Mayor wants something to be passed that makes his advasary (City Council) STRONGER? Of course not. The Mayor only supported Term Extentions because he needed Council to support his LAUSD takeover plan.

It's been eight months since I first showed up at City Hall to protest the ban on certain items at Venice Beach. (FYI: Judge will hear case Dec. 8th. ZD will be back on the beach, Dec. 9th.)

Until then, I didn't know the Mayor's name, cause I was living in Las Vegas during the election.

But I did say all along, from my first day at City Hall (April 4, 2006), it really wasn't about the vendors on the other side of the beach, having their sales hurt over Matt Dowd's incense, Michael Hunt's Shea Butter and Zuma Dogg's T-shirts.

It was about real estate development, and they were trying to turn Venice Beach into Manhattan Beach (Marina Del Rey is more like it), with corporate shopping like the Gap, and luxury condos. So let's get all those bums off Venice Beach, for the people looking to buy a $1.5 million dollar condo on Venice's Ocean Front Walk. After all, we don't want a repeat of what happened to the luxury downtown lofts, left vacant, because of the proximity to skid row homeless agressive panhandlers.

BUT I HAD NO "F-ING" IDEA THE EXTENT OF IT ALL. So after eight months at City Hall, I came to the conclusion (as most of you already know), THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE PLAUGING THIS CITY (besides crystal meth) IS THE OVER-PRICED, LUXURY, COND-CONVERSION MADNESS THAT HAS SWEPT OUR CITY. We will be feeling the negative reprecussions for decades. Here's what has just happened:

The Mayor and Los Angeles City Council have been ignoring laws in the books since 1981 regarding vacancy rates for condo-conversions. Also, PLUM laws regarding tenant notification and re-location money. But most importantly, the fact that one-third of all condo-conversions are supposed to be set aside for affordable housing. (Other Cities pay attention to this in the County and surrounding Counties, but not Mayor Tony & LA CC.)

And the problem is, the middle class has been squeezed out to the outskirts of town. You have the rich living in L.A., and the middle and lower income people (working in the City) having longer commutes, creating traffic nightmares and chasing away residents and business.

You cannot have a successful City without having the three classes living together. It destroys the ecology of the community. It would be nice if it actually worked. (Having the rich people live in the City, and having the lower class have to drive their broke ass to the outskirts in nightmare traffic. Get 'em out of here...they're bringing down the property value.) But nothing brings down the property value like the traffic in L.A., the wave of new homeless this plan creates, and the vacant luxury-condos no one can afford, or want to afford in your City.

So lets start looking a little more closely at all of this, because there is a reason these pesky laws are in place. Because it maintains the cultural, social and economic fabric of the community.

There is more money to be made off affordable housing that is 100% occupied, than luxury-condos that sit vacant. Get smart Mayor and don't be so short sighted on this. At first I thought there was something nefarious going on here, but maybe it's just short sighted-ness. Either way, you've nearly destoryed the City, so try and fix it. Thanks, bro.